Third party lib clarification #1918
Conversation
| @@ -15,7 +15,11 @@ date: 2022-10-17 | |||
|
|
|||
| # Third Party Library Usage | |||
|
|
|||
| To complete the review process at [addons.mozilla.org](https://addons.mozilla.org) (AMO), reviewers must be able to verify the code in your extension. You may include third-party libraries in your extension. In that case, when you upload your extension to AMO, you will need to provide links to the library source code. | |||
| > Only release versions of third-party libraries and/or frameworks may be included with an add-on. Modifications to these libraries/frameworks are not permitted. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| > Only release versions of third-party libraries and/or frameworks may be included with an add-on. Modifications to these libraries/frameworks are not permitted. | |
| > Only release versions of third-party libraries and frameworks can be included in an add-on. Modifications to included libraries and frameworks are not permitted. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Instead of duplicating the sentence, can we link to the policies section like:
Please note the requirements for third-party libraries in the #Add-on Policies#, where #Add-on Policieslinks to the development section of the policies.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sounds good. I'll update the PR to integrate this feedback after I merge @rebloor's other feedback.
|
I've removed the exact policy text from the Third Party Library Usage docs as requested by @wagnerand. The main motivation for this PR was to quote that passage, so without it I was compelled to rewrite some sections in order to clarify and add more details to our requirements. @wagnerand, please take a look to see if you're comfortable with these updates. @rebloor, please hold off on another pass until then. |
| * Extensions may only use the release versions of third party libraries. | ||
| * Third party libraries may not be modified. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is still duplicating content from the policies page. We should avoid that because we can't re-check all related pages when the policies are updated to find copies of provisions that were updated. Wouldn't a link to the policies section be enough, as you do in line 18?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, I don't think so. This PR was created in response to a request from @mixedpuppy to quote the policy text on this page. The initial motivation for that request was that this page did not communicate the policy requirements to the reader despite the positioning that it is authoritative on the topic.
The other approach I was considering was to move the relevant policy text out of addons-policy.md and into a partial. That partial would then be imported in both addons-policy.md and third-party-library-usage.md. But since we don't have an existing pattern of using partials like this I held off.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As I said in private, this is a best practices document, not a policies or requirements document. We should not duplicate official requirements into best practices documents. We can link to the policies where the requirements are stated, but the duplication is a recipe for failure, and we have to avoid that for content that touches policy provisions. There needs to be a single source of truth that we can we can reasonably keep up to date.
Co-authored-by: rebloor <[email protected]>
These edits will be migrated into another branch.
Co-authored-by: rebloor <[email protected]>
Missing commit for #1918 Co-authored-by: rebloor <[email protected]>
Add the relevant policy text to the third party library usage documentation.
This PR also introduces styling for
<blockquote>elements. Before this PR there was only one preexisting usage of<blockquote>or>in the documentation: the destroyed actor section of the known issues page. That page should be visually unaffected by this change.